This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice (http://www2.deloitte.com/ca/en/legal/cookies.html) for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.

The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

Related Topics

Related Discussions

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, the AASB reviewed final revisions to proposed CSOA 5000. It was noted that the current Section 7500 includes an auditor’s consent in connection with the entity’s financial statements and the auditor’s report thereon filed with securities regulatory authorities. Consistent with Section 5020, Association, proposed CSOA 5000 does not include such an auditor’s consent. Section 7500 will be withdrawn from the CPA Canada Handbook – Assurance when CSOA 5000 becomes effective. The AASB will consider the implications of no longer having this consent covered by a standard. The AASOC noted that many other jurisdictions do not have a standard equivalent to Section 5020. Mr. Jensen stated that the AASB believes the standard is important because it protects the public by requiring the practitioner to take appropriate action when the public may be misinformed about the involvement of the practitioner with information with which the practitioner is associated.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, the AASB reviewed final revisions to proposed CSOA 5000. It was noted that the current Section 7500 includes an auditor’s consent in connection with the entity’s financial statements and the auditor’s report thereon filed with securities regulatory authorities. Consistent with Section 5020, Association, proposed CSOA 5000 does not include such an auditor’s consent. Section 7500 will be withdrawn from the CPA Canada Handbook – Assurance when CSOA 5000 becomes effective. The AASB will consider the implications of no longer having this consent covered by a standard. The AASOC noted that many other jurisdictions do not have a standard equivalent to Section 5020. Mr. Jensen stated that the AASB believes the standard is important because it protects the public by requiring the practitioner to take appropriate action when the public may be misinformed about the involvement of the practitioner with information with which the practitioner is associated.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, it was noted that the IAASB has started a project to consider revisions to ISA 540. The AASB discussed key issues raised by the IAASB’s task force including: (i) how to address scalability within the standard; and (ii) risk assessment, including how to identify and assess risks and the work effort in responding to risks. In response to a question from AASOC as to why scalability is an issue, Mr. Jensen stated that the AASB is concerned that the required work effort included in the standard may be overly focused on addressing highly complex accounting estimates, and not flexible for dealing with a broad range of accounting estimates

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, it was noted that the IAASB has started a project to consider revisions to ISA 540. The AASB discussed key issues raised by the IAASB’s task force including: (i) how to address scalability within the standard; and (ii) risk assessment, including how to identify and assess risks and the work effort in responding to risks. In response to a question from AASOC as to why scalability is an issue, Mr. Jensen stated that the AASB is concerned that the required work effort included in the standard may be overly focused on addressing highly complex accounting estimates, and not flexible for dealing with a broad range of accounting estimates.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, it was noted that the IESBA approved revisions to its Code of Ethics addressing the professional accountant’s responsibilities when non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws or regulations is detected by the auditor. Various ISAs and other international standards make reference to the IESBA Code. To ensure that international standards do not conflict with the IESBA Code, the IAASB proposed limited amendments that clarify and emphasize key aspects of the IESBA’s revisions in the international standards. The IAASB approved these amendments at its June 2016 meeting. The AASB believes that changes to documentation requirements in ISA 250 were not necessary. Documentation is sufficiently addressed in ISA 230. The AASB does not believe that this represented a fatal flaw and was supportive of the final revisions.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, it was noted that the IESBA approved revisions to its Code of Ethics addressing the professional accountant’s responsibilities when non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws or regulations is detected by the auditor. Various ISAs and other international standards make reference to the IESBA Code. To ensure that international standards do not conflict with the IESBA Code, the IAASB proposed limited amendments that clarify and emphasize key aspects of the IESBA’s revisions in the international standards. The IAASB approved these amendments at its June 2016 meeting. The AASB believes that changes to documentation requirements in ISA 250 were not necessary. Documentation is sufficiently addressed in ISA 230. The AASB does not believe that this represented a fatal flaw and was supportive of the final revisions.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, the AASB discussed issues related to the IAASB’s project to revise ISRS 4400, including: (i) whether the use of ambiguous terminology in the practitioner’s report should be prohibited even if the use of such terminology is required by law, regulation or contract; (ii) whether the practitioner should be required to agree with the entity whether the use of the report would be restricted, and, if so, to whom; (iii) the proposed work effort when using the work of others; and (iv) how to address engagements that contain aspects of different types of engagements and different levels of assurance.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, the AASB discussed issues related to the IAASB’s project to revise ISRS 4400, including: (i) whether the use of ambiguous terminology in the practitioner’s report should be prohibited even if the use of such terminology is required by law, regulation or contract; (ii) whether the practitioner should be required to agree with the entity whether the use of the report would be restricted, and, if so, to whom; (iii) the proposed work effort when using the work of others; and (iv) how to address engagements that contain aspects of different types of engagements and different levels of assurance.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, the AASB discussed issues related to its project to revise Section 9200 including: (i) the definition of a compilation engagement; (ii) whether compilation engagements should be subject to firm quality control standards; (iii) the preconditions to accepting a compilation engagement; (iv) the exercise of professional judgment in a compilation engagement; and (v) management’s responsibility for significant judgments.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, the AASB discussed issues related to its project to revise Section 9200 including: (i) the definition of a compilation engagement; (ii) whether compilation engagements should be subject to firm quality control standards; (iii) the preconditions to accepting a compilation engagement; (iv) the exercise of professional judgment in a compilation engagement; and (v) management’s responsibility for significant judgments.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, following a discussion, voting members of AASOC present at this meeting unanimously agreed that the AASB had followed due process in preparing its 2016-2021 Strategic Plan.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, following a discussion, voting members of AASOC present at this meeting unanimously agreed that the AASB had followed due process in preparing its 2016-2021 Strategic Plan.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, the AASB noted that it has reached certain key conclusions, including: (i) the AASB should move forward to adopt the revised auditor reporting standards in Canada; (ii) consistent with the International Standards on Auditing, reporting on key audit matters should apply to listed entities; (iii) the effective date should be deferred by one year from that proposed in the Invitation to Comment (i.e., 2018 versus 2017); (iv) there should be a one-year staging of key audit matter requirements, the same as that proposed in the Invitation to Comment (i.e., TSX companies in 2018 and all others in 2019); and (v) earlier application of the standards should be allowed starting in 2017. AASOC noted that awareness of the proposed revisions is very low. Mr. Jensen stated that the AASB is aware of this. Among other elements of a detailed implementation plan involving the AASB and other stakeholders, the AASB plans to issue a message from the chair to update stakeholders on developments. Further, the AASB believes that the deferral in effective date provides opportunities for more communication to raise awareness. AASOC questioned whether it is clear that the benefits of requiring key audit matters reporting by auditors of non-TSX listed entities exceed the related costs. Mr. Jensen noted that this is a complex issue that the AASB considered carefully during its deliberations.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, the AASB noted that it has reached certain key conclusions, including: (i) the AASB should move forward to adopt the revised auditor reporting standards in Canada; (ii) consistent with the International Standards on Auditing, reporting on key audit matters should apply to listed entities; (iii) the effective date should be deferred by one year from that proposed in the Invitation to Comment (i.e., 2018 versus 2017); (iv) there should be a one-year staging of key audit matter requirements, the same as that proposed in the Invitation to Comment (i.e., TSX companies in 2018 and all others in 2019); and (v) earlier application of the standards should be allowed starting in 2017. AASOC noted that awareness of the proposed revisions is very low. Mr. Jensen stated that the AASB is aware of this. Among other elements of a detailed implementation plan involving the AASB and other stakeholders, the AASB plans to issue a message from the chair to update stakeholders on developments. Further, the AASB believes that the deferral in effective date provides opportunities for more communication to raise awareness. AASOC questioned whether it is clear that the benefits of requiring key audit matters reporting by auditors of non-TSX listed entities exceed the related costs. Mr. Jensen noted that this is a complex issue that the AASB considered carefully during its deliberations.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, it was noted that the IAASB is expected to approve a project to consider revisions to ISA 315 at its September 2016 meeting. The AASB discussed key issues raised by the IAASB’s task force including: (i) the proposed project objectives; (ii) whether there is a need to introduce a framework to facilitate the auditor’s assessment of risk; (iii) what information or documentation is required when tracing transactions through the business process; (iv) how to document the use of the auditor’s judgment; and (v) how to address impact on other key standards, including assessing fraud and the auditor’s responses to risk.

At the AASOC meeting on July 7-8, 2016, it was noted that the IAASB is expected to approve a project to consider revisions to ISA 315 at its September 2016 meeting. The AASB discussed key issues raised by the IAASB’s task force including: (i) the proposed project objectives; (ii) whether there is a need to introduce a framework to facilitate the auditor’s assessment of risk; (iii) what information or documentation is required when tracing transactions through the business process; (iv) how to document the use of the auditor’s judgment; and (v) how to address impact on other key standards, including assessing fraud and the auditor’s responses to risk.